[1axbycz1]

{comments}

---

The bidding speaks for itself.

[helene_t]

Yes, we have seen this auction a few times before. The problem is that there is a gap in the GIB system here, and GIB then defaults to "when in doubt, pass".

It is probably not so easy to fix this. Ideally, "pass" would always mean something, so whenever GIB encounters a gap in its system it should pick the smallest lie which is not necesarily pass.

Alternatively, make it a rule never to pass a forcing bid, i.e. a bid that is explicitly forcing, or unlimited, or is at a lower level than to which GIB is already forced..

[1eyedjack]

helene_t, on 2016-September-27, 04:47, said:

Yes, we have seen this auction a few times before. The problem is that there is a gap in the GIB system here, and GIB then defaults to "when in doubt, pass".

It is probably not so easy to fix this. Ideally, "pass" would always mean something, so whenever GIB encounters a gap in its system it should pick the smallest lie which is not necesarily pass.

Alternatively, make it a rule never to pass a forcing bid, i.e. a bid that is explicitly forcing, or unlimited, or is at a lower level than to which GIB is already forced..

This is such a trivial, common, uncomplicated low level sequence for GIB not to have a defined rule to handle it

[iandayre]

I would suggest that jumps to 5 of a major over partner's takeout doubles be defined as natural and slam invitational - not forcing. This may not be ideal but I would give much better results than the ill-defined cue bids which GIB partners are unable to interpret. At least you would usually be in the right strain. This hand should fit within that description I believe.

[johnu]

iandayre, on 2016-September-27, 12:08, said:

I would suggest that jumps to 5 of a major over partner's takeout doubles be defined as natural and slam invitational - not forcing. This may not be ideal but I would give much better results than the ill-defined cue bids which GIB partners are unable to interpret. At least you would usually be in the right strain. This hand should fit within that description I believe.

The cue bid would probably have gotten to the "right" strain if the other GIB didn't pass although I wouldn't bet any money on it. As far as a jump to 5M, isn't that the GIB agreement (I have no idea whether it is or not, but that's what I would expect). It will certainly get to a better contract than playing in a 5 level cue bid.

[jdonn]

What format was this from? Were you playing on your phone or something like that? Any information about what game you were playing in would help.

[lycier]

jdonn, on 2016-October-01, 20:22, said:

What format was this from? Were you playing on your phone or something like that? Any information about what game you were playing in would help.

Can I help you?

---

Here is my hand played by my basic Gib.

---

I think cuebid 5♥ to show 11+TPs is a correct system bid according to present Gib CC system, however after cuebid 5♥, here there is no following system bids on Gib CC, and there is no following bidding rule on Gib programming. Actually Gib W really didn't know how to bid.
Maybe it would be a tough work if fix this issue.

[iandayre]

Here is another hand where the unfortunate South was passed in a high level cue bid by GIB. This is from an ACBL
Robot Tournament. I just successfully bid my longest suit at the 6 level in the same position, but 5S wasn't so bad in my opinion.

http://tinyurl.com/zeeswmr